A small personal VTOL aircraft is a fine thing to have. But if you have that, then driving on the road somewhere with it is not a very big plus.

Oh, sure, maybe due to laws or local restrictions on landing and takeoff I suppose you might have some problem wanting to launch and land in your driveway or parking garage in a dense suburb. So you might think: hey I want to land somewhere and then drive home on the highway.

However, if personal aircraft were to become as affordable as cars, then infrastructure could easily be adapted. For example, a neighborhood landing/takeoff parking area in a cul-de-sac for n-houses. Better to optimize for flying or driving because there isn't going to be a very good solution for the combination. Well, so long as anti-gravity devices aren't available and you have to rely on thrust and lift.

And this "Skycar" doesn't look at all like a car to me. Looks like a Cessna TTx with four smaller engines w/enclosed props. I would not be caught dead "driving" that aircraft down the interstate highway!

JoeP wrote:I do not see the big advantage in having a car/aircraft hybrid.

A small personal VTOL aircraft is a fine thing to have. But if you have that, then driving on the road somewhere with it is not a very big plus.

Oh, sure, maybe due to laws or local restrictions on landing and takeoff I suppose you might have some problem wanting to launch and land in your driveway or parking garage in a dense suburb. So you might think: hey I want to land somewhere and then drive home on the highway.

The market at least initially would be in competition with Helicopters, not really your family car. Prices of 500K to a million are obviously more competitive with copters than cars, in spite of the name "skycar". It can do anything a copter can do with greater range, speed, safety, higher service ceiling. Picture a Helicopter that can land in a much larger range of places drive on a road to an ordinary gas station, refuel drive to a good take off spot and then fly away. A copter that (supposedly) wouldn't require a pilot's license to operate.

JoeP wrote:However, if personal aircraft were to become as affordable as cars, then infrastructure could easily be adapted. For example, a neighborhood landing/takeoff parking area in a cul-de-sac for n-houses. Better to optimize for flying or driving because there isn't going to be a very good solution for the combination.

Again competing with copters(or light planes like a Cessna) would be more your market for the Moller skycar, not actually replacing cars as such. Anyone who has 500K to a million to blow on a skycar (or helicopter) doubtlessly has an ordinary car(s) for their day to day uses. A plane you don't need an airport to land/take-off, that you can park at home, drive to where you can safely take-off. To say nothing of police/military uses; or a care flight skycar that can land anywhere, even drive a short distance after landing(or before take-off) if needed. Operate without a pilot's license. If 50K a year of these Skycars were being sold that would be huge for light aircraft but obviously an miniscule fraction of the 10's of millions of ordinary automobiles sold.

JoeP wrote:And this "Skycar" doesn't look at all like a car to me. Looks like a Cessna TTx with four smaller engines w/enclosed props. I would not be caught dead "driving" that aircraft down the interstate highway!

Doesn't look like a car because in spite of its name it’s not a car; it’s an aircraft that has the ability to drive on roads short distances like a car. Again think of it as a plane/copter that you can drive on the roads; competing (at least foreseeably) against light planes/copters not automobiles.

I'd rather drive to the local airport and take my chopper or light aircraft. If I had one. But that's IMO.

I also do not see any reason why there should not be a requirement for a pilots license either. It is an aircraft, and not an ultra-light or a glider, which IIRC are the types of vehicles that may be exempt from the licensing requirements.

GIThruster wrote:I personally highly doubt it. With the engines in nacelles, gearing them to the wheels is going to be a nightmare. Either they're working on this or not and these weasel words imply they are not.

I am sorry GIT...but you think that's the show stopper? Why would you need to have gears going from the motors in the nacelles to the wheels anyway? Let's see...the engines probably also run a generator (like a car's alternator) to run the craft's controls and computers if nothing else; wires to electric motors for the wheels, couldn't that be used to drive the vehicle's wheels? That would explain the relatively modest estimated road speed of <30mph. Hard to believe it would be that low if the power came from aggregate >700HP multiple engines.

GIThruster wrote:I personally highly doubt it. With the engines in nacelles, gearing them to the wheels is going to be a nightmare. Either they're working on this or not and these weasel words imply they are not.

I am sorry GIT...but you think that's the show stopper? Why would you need to have gears going from the motors in the nacelles to the wheels anyway? Let's see...the engines probably also run a generator (like a car's alternator) to run the craft's controls and computers if nothing else; wires to electric motors for the wheels, couldn't that be used to drive the vehicle's wheels? That would explain the relatively modest estimated road speed of <30mph. Hard to believe it would be that low if the power came from aggregate >700HP multiple engines.

The engines I've seen do not have generators like what you're talking about. Surely, what you say makes the most sense to move the power from the engines to the wheels, but there is no evidence that ANY work has gone toward this effort to date. Just saying, the downwash is the killer for this. It is NOT an example of the kind of "flying car" people think about with the Jetsons, because of the downwash. You'll never see it come to market and if it does, it will only last a couple years before it goes belly up. Anyone who watches the experimental aircraft industry knows this thing is not gonna work.

"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Told elsewhere top speed of 100mph greater than 10 minutes flight time (depending on pilot's weight) and fuel is kerosene. No info on price and the inventor isn't saying when/if/how much it will be available for to the public. Also heard they are working on a JB-10 model no info about it.

What pilot, as a kid, didn’t thrill to the notion of strapping on a jetpack, shedding gravity’s shackles and seeing the world from up there in the sky? In recognition of both that faded ambition and the slack time pilots sometimes have to kill in an FBO lounge or a hotel room, here’s something a little off AIN’s beaten path.

The plan is to offer a commercial product eventually, according to Tyler. A Jetpack flying for six minutes at 55 knots (JB-9’s top speed) could move someone quickly three miles, say from a road to the site of an aircraft accident that can’t be reached by vehicle. JB-9 has an empty weight of 90 pounds and currently flies with just five gallons of fuel to stay within FAA Part 103 ultralight regulations, although it could haul up to 10 gallons.

Tyler has been discussing with the FAA how to expand the flight envelope, especially as work on JB-10 has begun. JB-10 could achieve speeds of more than 100 knots, and it may feature a ballistic parachute system, if one can be designed that not only weighs 12 pounds or less but also looks good when incorporated into the Jetpack. He is also considering adding an autopilot to the flight controls, if lightweight actuators are available.